>> ^Aemaeth:
I don't get it. I don't find that a particularly relevant question for a presidental candidate, unless they make insurance company policy now.
If we could elect the president of insurance companies, I guarantee we'd get better turn out.


It has to do with something one of McCain's surrogates said, while trying to reach out to women voters. In short, she said he supported a bill that would force insurance companies to cover birth control, when in fact he voted against it. The reporter was just wanting to get an answer from McCain on his position, since there was that discrepancy.

This one's probably fair for him to come up empty on (it's pretty obscure), but the expressions here are priceless.

I don't get it. I don't find that a particularly relevant question for a presidental candidate, unless they make insurance company policy now.

If we could elect the president of insurance companies, I guarantee we'd get better turn out.

Why do presidental candidates HAVE TO change taxes? It seems to me that Americans need to have "tidal taxes" that swing back and forth with each president.

You could have saved yourself a little trouble by titling this and all other videos about the Chimperor as "Bush lied about_____________"

The man lies like we breathe. If he said the sky was blue I'd call up the folks at Wikipedia to let them know that blue no longer means this.

Of course in Iraq blue skies look more like the right side of this image, thanks to El Presidente.

Thylan, a woman working on TV is just as vapid as much of the general populace that watches TV and looks for things she thinks will make people watch.

RE: Aliens. He said he saw a UFO = unidentified flying object (meaning it could have been el presidente pretending to be Super Man or swamp gas). "I saw a UFO" <> "I saw aliens". Kucinich is far from perfect, but he is not the looney that some folks make him out to be. Look for better reasons why he wouldn't make a good president.

Played out a short time ago in Chile, with Señor El Presidente Pinoncha?? and a handful of weeks ago in Venezuela con Animallissimo Chavez......happens a lot you can bet, wherever someone with ego, $$, and power, wants it to....

Who cares if Hitler never won a fair election? Neither did Bush?

His historical exaggerations undermine his argument but the specifics of the history aren't really all that relevant. I think the "Blaming the Jews" argument that some have thrown out here is a red herring thrown out to confuse the issues. He's not blaming them, he's just saying that they might have had a chance if they'd resisted in the early phases. Even if he was blaming them, it's no reason to throw out the rest of his arguments, it's a bit like people calling Clinton a bad president because he couldn't keep his penis in his pants. Attack the argument, not the man. So far I've seen very few people tackle the actual meat of his arguments, most of you are debating irrelevant snippets in an attempt to discredit him.

Marine Gunrock:

Have you had a look at your checks and balances lately? 3 branches; Executive, obviously controlled by BushCo. Judicial, after massive hirings of loyal Bushies against the law in many cases and with a near lock on the Supreme Court also pretty well under BushCo's thumb. Legislative, 100% under control of BushCo up until the recent elections, now they're pretty skittish about opposing him so give him a "mostly" controls B+ (and if they inact any legislation he doesn't like he can just sign away the parts he doesn't like or veto the entire thing.

What checks and balances? They've all been perverted to suit el Presidente, the dictator who has never actually won a fair election.

A pithy attempt by the morally bankrupt to avenge the felonious former presidente. Libbymania adds up to zero and his sentence either way means nothing in the Big Picture.

Yaaaay! oilcan!! Back at the accusers, make em eat hatte!!! Never doubted you for a second, and think the self-post rule is kinda chumpy anyhow....See, if it's good it's good, and if any member here that makes a viddy, then wants it here and gets some co-conspirator to put it up, well, that's ok(fukin' double standard if ya ask someone without an ego)....Didn't JD selfpost a while back and rub everyone's nose innit???? Oh wait, that was the girl from those Spade movies......nvermnd...

3 cheers for oilcan's chikkin's!!!
Hep Hep Harangue! (x3)....oooooooh, grody!! those people on the eviscerating line weren't wearin' gloves!!!! Salmonella immunity from long-term, exposure...or sick to my stomach every night after work.......Look!!! Those were white people working in the chicken plant..........not anymore, Thanks George Bush(Sr. and Jr.) for a third-world America, mucho gracias, pinche presidente'!!!!!

The reasoning that because Habeaus Corpus can't be taken away from citizens doesn't necessarily imply everyone has it to NOT be taken away from them is a TERRIBLY FRIGHTENING thing to hear from the Attorney General of the U.S.A.

(wow, a triple negative in that last sentence)


There are numerous law opinion publishings about how lawyers for the Presidental cabinet have traditionally, until Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's control, been asked by the White House and congress 'Will such-and-such policy in this bill be lawful?', to which the lawyer staff would express a yes or no, and why.

The current administration is the first to openly and consistently work in reverse, where staff lawyers are asked 'how can we make this action we are taking sufficiently lawful in the context of the War and 9/11', and in effect are asked to pervert the wording of laws with very apparent intentions to validate claims that domestic spying is not unconstitutional, jailing U.S. citizens without due process is fine if associated with terrorism, and on and on.


By the way, extending this comment beyond any reasonable length, I'd like to share that 'Habeas corpus' is named such for 'having the corpse' for which you are imprisoned (if accused of killing someone, or metaphorically if you're imprisoned for another crime) brought before court to determine if you are indeed lawfully being imprisoned, and not being detained for other reasons or sentenced by a court out of its jurisdiction.

In the context of our current war and fight against terrorism, Habeas corpus has been effectively suspended for any citizen of non-citizen with suspected terrorism ties. No court filing or hearing need be provided, the person can just be wisked away. ooh, theres a nice wikipedia article about this here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus